CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33Ethics and Social Impacts of AISexual Assault and Victimization StudiesGender, Violence, Rights in Latin America

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Technology, Sexual Violence, and Power-Evasive Politics: Mapping the Anti-violence Sociotechnical Imaginary

Shelby, Renee·2023·Science, Technology, & Human Values
DOI 10.1177/01622439211046047
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent discussions on technology and gender-violence prevention emphasize that technoscientific applications often advance pro-punishment logics that enact gendered inequalities. Less attention has focused on racialized dimensions and how technology might advance abolitionist and transformative justice agendas. In response, this article considers how inventors mobilize technology as a frontline response to sexual violence, in which technoscience—rather than police—enables individuals, friends, and family to provide safety and mutual aid. Through analysis of seven popular technologies produced between 2010 and 2020, this paper documents how their “abolitionist sensibility” is accompanied by fellow-traveler discourses that are unattuned to intersecting power relations. Findings suggest that while this sociotechnical imaginary is reacting to state power, it reinforces a race-neutral and techno-optimistic vision for building a violence-free future. These power-evasive politics may thus signal increased susceptibility to carceral creep and coercive surveillant regimes. After discussing these double-edge politics, I conclude by discussing power formations that are left unexamined in the imaginary and how to cultivate a counter-carceral praxis in line with transformative justice goals.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/01622439211046047

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Beaton Brian, 2015, MediaTropes, 105
  2. Benjamin Ruha, 2019, Race after Technology
  3. Davis Angela, 1981, Women, Race, and Class
  4. Kaba Mariame, 2021, We Do This ‘Til We Free Us: Abolitionist Organizing and Transforming Justice
  5. Richie Beth, 2012, Arrested Justice

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Shelby, R.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Shelby, Renee
ORCID
Shelby, Renee
Venue
Science, Technology, & Human Values
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2021-09-20
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
552-581
ISSN
  • 0162-2439 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8251
DOI
10.1177/01622439211046047
OpenAlex
W3201317531
Semantic Scholar
7844965879565228459394e5d99935f6b9079d87
Cited by
33
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Science Technology & Human Values (publishedVersion)
Funders
American Council of Learned Societies (Mellon/ACLS Fellowship)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Gender, Violence, Rights in Latin America
Keywords
sexual violence, sociotechnical imaginaries, abolitionism, transformative justice, surveillance, mutual aid, state power, technological optimism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review